USAF CRSC standards different than BCMR

BDCarrillo

PEB Forum Regular Member
Registered Member
Bit of a public-service-announcement and food for thought:

After a review by the BCMR, my medical retirement was recharacterized as combat related. They specifically noted which disabilities fit their criteria, and the BCMR letter states:
"[evidence] is sufficient to justify granting the applicant’s request to have his [conditions] be categorized as combat-related, as a direct result of instrumentality of war as defined in 26 USC 104 combat-related determination."
New retirement orders were cut, DD214 updated, etc etc.


Forwarded that to the CRSC folks as new evidence for reconsideration, and it was denied. Excerpt from the CRSC response:
The Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) found your [conditions] as combat-related regarding your medical retirement. However, their decision does not automatically qualify your disabilities as combat-related under the CRSC program. The CRSC program is designed to provide compensation for combat-related injuries. Consequently, our standards are much more rigorous when determining disabilities under current criteria. When making combat-related determinations for injuries, the Board looks for in-service documents from the time of the injury, confirming medical treatment was sought at the time of the injury, and confirming the injury scenario. If you have the initial in-service medical record from the time of an incident that confirms the event and the injury, you may submit for reconsideration.

Curiously the response to my original CRSC claim included a blurb that portions of medical records may not be objective documentary evidence:
Although medical documentation may confirm mental health diseases, it does not identify a specific combat related event (nexus) that attributed to the claimed disability. Medical documentation for such disabilities are often related from a patient's account (point of view) of what happened and not objective documentary evidence that the claimed combat-related stressors occurred.

Bottom line: BCMR's view (or PEB, presumably) on combat-related events does not imply that CRSC will be awarded.
 
This is the best explanation yet of what I try to explain to folks all the time about the higher standards for CRSC for mental health conditions.
 
This is the best explanation yet of what I try to explain to folks all the time about the higher standards for CRSC for mental health conditions.
Saw your notes about the CAB in another thread- I just had mine retroactively awarded and will be sending it in for reconsideration. It'll be amusing if the end result is the BCMR calling physical conditions combat-related, while CRSC determines (fitting) mental conditions are combat-related.
 
Saw your notes about the CAB in another thread- I just had mine retroactively awarded and will be sending it in for reconsideration. It'll be amusing if the end result is the BCMR calling physical conditions combat-related, while CRSC determines (fitting) mental conditions are combat-related.
I've been telling people this for several years now: just because the PEB or VA determines something to be combat-related, it does NOT mean a person will automatically be approved purely based on the respective results. Physical conditions are easier to prove: GSW, broken leg due to bad PLF, amputation below the elbow due to IED, etc typically will lead to ER/OR visits and corresponding treatment(s). BH conditions? Months if not years after deployment: there's generally no "source" evidence that an event or events occurred causing the BH condition since it manifests itself generally after a significant amount of time. Which is why they rely on the awarding of combat-related awards: PH/BS/SS/CAB/CIB/CMB, awards with "V", "C", etc devices and so on.
 
once I sort out editing (on phone for a couple days) I'll add these clarifications to the original:

first CRSC blurb is from a physical condition reconsideration, second is from a mental initial application (CAB relates to this one, though who knows the USAF perspective on a CAB for evidence in a future reconsideration). BCMR agreed that the physical condition was CR by virtue of instrumentality of war.

The overall message that JMATTK is sending out is (sadly) spot-on. Hopefully the actual response quotes help some folks. The frustrating bit is that the definition of Combat Related is rooted in Federal Law. How different offices (practically neighbors) arrive at differing opinions is disheartening.


I understand the VA vs DoD disparity as whole person vs unfitting condition; at least that makes a degree of sense.
 
I think this is an issue that should be addressed by veterans service organizations as unequal treatment for MH issues.

1. There are physical conditions that don’t manifest immediately but are approved, like cysticercosis, leishmaniasis, schistosomiasis….

2. Modern medicine can scan the brain and find evidence so that the documentation is no all self report, but that doesn’t happen.
 
Did a bit of rummaging and was amused to find an Army BCMR case that pointed out "Military retirement decisions may be used to determine whether such disabilities are combat-related", which is found on the second paragraph of page 5 of the latest guidance I could find- https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/CRSC_Guidance_104.pdf

DoDI 7000.14-R states the same. The wording of the criteria in both documents mirrors the same used in the PEB process and Federal law. This really has me wondering where the "much more rigorous" criteria are coming from.

Note that both of those documents cover some of the presumptive conditions that chaplaincharlie mentions in his first point.
 
In my opinion, there have been many denials of CRSC for questionable reasons.

From circa 2021. As stated, it is difficult to predict what a CRSC board will approve. The most troubling case I read about follows:


[start] I read the following some time ago; it was written by a former member of an appeals board:

"The closest call was one where a veteran was claiming CRSC for his leg. He had broken his leg while retreating from overwhelming forces during the battle of Chosen Reservoir. The rationale was enemy action did not cause him to fall down the hill, which caused his broken leg. He fell down the hill because he was walking backwards returning fire again North Korean soldiers. My primary focus on the case was the fact that he wouldn't have been walking backwards if it hadn't been for enemy action. I was overruled. The board wanted a cause and effect for the CRSC injury. " [end]

Ron
cc: @RetiredColonel-MikeT
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, there have been many denials of CRSC for questionable reasons.

From circa 2021. As stated, it is difficult to predict what a CRSC board will approve. The most troubling case I read about follows:


[start] I read the following some time ago; it was written by a former member of an appeals board:

"The closest call was one where a veteran was claiming CRSC for his leg. He had broken his leg while retreating from overwhelming forces during the battle of Chosen Reservoir. The rationale was enemy action did not cause him to fall down the hill, which caused his broken leg. He fell down the hill because he was walking backwards returning fire again North Korean soldiers. My primary focus on the case was the fact that he wouldn't have been walking backwards if it hadn't been for enemy action. I was overruled. The board wanted a cause and effect for the CRSC injury. " [end]

Ron
cc: @RetiredColonel-MikeT
You posted this previously. It makes me shake my head.
 
You posted this previously. It makes me shake my head.
I have posted it on another board as well.

Everyone seems to have the same reaction. The applicant was a Marine and the CRSC decision was made by the Navy.

Ron
 
Sad decision making.
 
Did a bit of rummaging and was amused to find an Army BCMR case that pointed out "Military retirement decisions may be used to determine whether such disabilities are combat-related", which is found on the second paragraph of page 5 of the latest guidance I could find- https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/CRSC_Guidance_104.pdf

DoDI 7000.14-R states the same. The wording of the criteria in both documents mirrors the same used in the PEB process and Federal law. This really has me wondering where the "much more rigorous" criteria are coming from.

Note that both of those documents cover some of the presumptive conditions that chaplaincharlie mentions in his first point.
One thing that potentially had changed the handling of CRSC claims is back in the 2007-2008 timeframe when the VA dropped the requirement for a wartime Commander's Statement for claims of PTSD. And which statement is handy these days when someone doesn't have a combat-related award already, which gives pretty much carte blanche when it comes to rubber stamping something as being "combat-related"? Yes, that very same, wartime Commanders' Statement which forces a vet to try to track down someone who has long separated from the military and can be pretty much anywhere ::facepalm::
 
Saw your notes about the CAB in another thread- I just had mine retroactively awarded and will be sending it in for reconsideration. It'll be amusing if the end result is the BCMR calling physical conditions combat-related, while CRSC determines (fitting) mental conditions are combat-related.
I thought the Air Force receives a combat action medal vs badge, correct?
 
Also, DD214s are not updated, its the norm for a DD-215 (correction to DD-214) be issued instead.
 
I have posted it on another board as well.

Everyone seems to have the same reaction. The applicant was a Marine and the CRSC decision was made by the Navy.

Ron
As a former Marine; yes, the Corps is a department under the US Navy, which means that there could be a Marine member sitting on the board. Watch A Few Good Men and Top Gun that has the branches mixed sitting on the jury, testifying and at Top Gun school lol.
 
As a former Marine; yes, the Corps is a department under the US Navy, which means that there could be a Marine member sitting on the board. Watch A Few Good Men and Top Gun that has the branches mixed sitting on the jury, testifying and at Top Gun school lol.
I don’t know if a Marine was a member of the board. It is my understanding that the person claiming CRSC was a Marine and a survivor of the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. I inferred that the Navy made the decision as USMC applications are submitted to the Navy since the Marine Corps (a department under the Navy) does not have a CRSC board.

I was fortunate to work with all the uniformed services during an assignment to the Houston MEPS. One of my NCO schools (six months duration at the time) had members from all the services. That was a great experience.

Ron

Edited to add: I used to think the Battle of Chosin Reservoir involved only Marines. A Marine survivor of that battle in Korea posted the following today about another survivor:

“The Regimental Combat Team 31 (RCT-31), commonly referred to as Task Force Faith of the "Chosin Few", is a United States Army unit known for its role in the Battle of Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War where 90-95% of its force was killed, wounded, and/or captured on the eastern side of the reservoir.”

“We have a member of that unit in [the other forum]--although I have had no replies to messages I sent to him for a long time now. Some of the survivors of that battle were able to get to USMC lines and were
rescued. Too many people think the the Chosin Reservoir battle was all USMC.”
 
I thought the Air Force receives a combat action medal vs badge, correct?
My CAB narrowly pre-dates the creation of the AFCAM. Although there is the option to "turn in your CAB" for consideration of award of the AFCAM, I personally view that swap as a bit disrespectful. There are some folks who have received a CAB since the creation of the AFCAM; the criteria differ enough and it's typical for sister service awards to be honored. Similarly my Army Achievement Medals weren't swapped to AF Achievement Medals.

Also, DD214s are not updated, its the norm for a DD-215 (correction to DD-214) be issued instead.
The latest I received is a DD214 with alterations from the BCMR. I can't guess if this is a practice unique to the AF or BCMR cases.snip.jpg



On the unfortunate Marine who was denied CRSC- I'm surprised that "Performance of Duty Under Conditions Simulating War" didn't catch their situation of a retrograde movement as a "tactical exercise" if the opinion of the board was that the enemy was uninvolved.

In my particular situation, the physical conditions were caused by an instrumentality of war. It was noted as such by the PEB, FPEB, and SAFPC (until a staffer altered the final report to remove combat related codings... starting a ~4 year process with the BCMR to get things sorted). It certainly feels like a repeated cycle to furnish the same documents, reports, findings, etc for a different set of results.

As a bit of a gripe: Many DoD functions operate on preponderance of evidence, yet some Veterans must apparently have a sealed original clinical report signed in triplicate by witnesses from the exact moment of an injury to restore lost benefits via CRSC.
 
My CAB narrowly pre-dates the creation of the AFCAM. Although there is the option to "turn in your CAB" for consideration of award of the AFCAM, I personally view that swap as a bit disrespectful. There are some folks who have received a CAB since the creation of the AFCAM; the criteria differ enough and it's typical for sister service awards to be honored. Similarly my Army Achievement Medals weren't swapped to AF Achievement Medals.


The latest I received is a DD214 with alterations from the BCMR. I can't guess if this is a practice unique to the AF or BCMR cases.View attachment 9402



On the unfortunate Marine who was denied CRSC- I'm surprised that "Performance of Duty Under Conditions Simulating War" didn't catch their situation of a retrograde movement as a "tactical exercise" if the opinion of the board was that the enemy was uninvolved.

In my particular situation, the physical conditions were caused by an instrumentality of war. It was noted as such by the PEB, FPEB, and SAFPC (until a staffer altered the final report to remove combat related codings... starting a ~4 year process with the BCMR to get things sorted). It certainly feels like a repeated cycle to furnish the same documents, reports, findings, etc for a different set of results.

As a bit of a gripe: Many DoD functions operate on preponderance of evidence, yet some Veterans must apparently have a sealed original clinical report signed in triplicate by witnesses from the exact moment of an injury to restore lost benefits via CRSC.
If you don’t mind sharing, even though private message to me, would you mind elaborating your physical injury from instrumentality of war… only because I recently applied using that criteria and was denied. Just trying to figure out what they approve and what they don’t.
 
My CAB narrowly pre-dates the creation of the AFCAM. Although there is the option to "turn in your CAB" for consideration of award of the AFCAM, I personally view that swap as a bit disrespectful. There are some folks who have received a CAB since the creation of the AFCAM; the criteria differ enough and it's typical for sister service awards to be honored. Similarly my Army Achievement Medals weren't swapped to AF Achievement Medals.


The latest I received is a DD214 with alterations from the BCMR. I can't guess if this is a practice unique to the AF or BCMR cases.View attachment 9402



On the unfortunate Marine who was denied CRSC- I'm surprised that "Performance of Duty Under Conditions Simulating War" didn't catch their situation of a retrograde movement as a "tactical exercise" if the opinion of the board was that the enemy was uninvolved.

In my particular situation, the physical conditions were caused by an instrumentality of war. It was noted as such by the PEB, FPEB, and SAFPC (until a staffer altered the final report to remove combat related codings... starting a ~4 year process with the BCMR to get things sorted). It certainly feels like a repeated cycle to furnish the same documents, reports, findings, etc for a different set of results.

As a bit of a gripe: Many DoD functions operate on preponderance of evidence, yet some Veterans must apparently have a sealed original clinical report signed in triplicate by witnesses from the exact moment of an injury to restore lost benefits via CRSC.
Also, for a few of my other injuries..I struggle with this whole documentation thing.. I had leadership that would not even allow us to go to medical…even right after I had 750+ pounds dropped on top of me. My wrist was shattered and instead they looked at it said “man, that looks broken” and then when I asked to go to medical they said “no there’s a red ball in *(aircraft #)* you need to go take care of that instead. Or they would tell us we had to put down a different way we were injured. And then there were even times when we were in the middle of nowhere with no medical to even go to. So documentation is pretty rough. I don’t know if that’s typical of the flightline mentality in general but that was my experience.
 
Top